Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can have your own opinion but legally he's not guilty of anything.
True, the court case ruled him as not guilty, I still think OJ murdered two people even though the court case ruled him not guilty as well. Zimmerman murdered a teenager and got away with it.
True, the court case ruled him as not guilty, I still think OJ murdered two people even though the court case ruled him not guilty as well. Zimmerman murdered a teenager and got away with it.
Like I said, that's just your unsupported opinion. There's no shred of evidence supporting your hypothesis. In fact, that 6 female jurors acquitted him is pretty amazing as most women are more emotional and more likely sympathize with Trayvon.
Like I said, that's just your unsupported opinion. There's no shred of evidence supporting your hypothesis. In fact, that 6 female jurors acquitted him is pretty amazing as most women are more emotional and more likely sympathize with Trayvon.
So, their acquittal still doesn't answer the holes in Zimmerman's story that should of been brought into question.
Exactly. So why you're trying to change the topic, I don't know.
Fine. Would this hold you to a stricter or looser standard than cops using deadly force? I keep saying, I find it ABSURD that we hold cops to a higher standard of using deadly force than untrained civilians.
"We're talking about changes SYG."
Maybe you should read the title of the thread.
Personally, I could care less what you think of cops.
I only hope your hatred for them doesn't affect them someday coming to aid your family.
Wow, he was all the way home? Did Martin say that or did Zimmerman? How did he find Zimmerman if he made it all the way home? Was Zimmerman just standing around in the location he confronted Martin?
It was brought out in the trial.
If you want more info, I suggest to read the transcripts instead of guessing things.
Seems there is a lot of confusion over what a SYG rule is. Such laws have been adopted because of the idiocy, in states like CA, that have OTR. (Obligation to retreat) .People are fed up with being told they CAN'T fight back. With having to rely on running, like rabbits, and being required, by law, to give criminals whatever they want, in hopes that mercy will be shown them. Women are told, in OTR governed places, to just submit to rape, az that will give them a better chance of survival. Residents are required go flee their homes, if they can, and aren't dead, rather than fight back in home invasions. Basically, making defending yourself illegal. The only option is to submit, come what may.
So, Castle Doctrines and SYG laws have been enacted. A woman can stop her would be rapist, with lethal force. A resident, can can give home invaders all tbe 12ga they can handle. These laws are intended to empower citizens to defend themselves, with no obligation to submit or run or trust to the tender mercies of predators.
Simple recognition of human dignity, is what SYG boils down to. Regardless of recent events, that have the rabbit people so worked up, SYG laws are a good thing. Under OTR, criminals operated with impunity. Under the general assumption, that their prey, was obligated, by law, to submit to their will.
People are fed up with the CA way. SYG does NOT mean kill at will. Please! Spare me. Cases of self defense with lethal force are quite thoroughly investigated. Tbe rules governing use of lethal force all apply. This "kill at will" bit is a bit melodramatic.
OTR laws are just, flat, stupid. There should not even need to be a debate over this. You have a RIGHT, as a human being, to defend yourself. The law, should recognize that right as unquestionable. Cases of self defense are, and should be, investigated by LE. The findings either rule justification, or not, just as with LE shooting reviews. Leave our right to decend ourselves alone.
Seems there is a lot of confusion over what a SYG rule is. Such laws have been adopted because of the idiocy, in states like CA, that have OTR. (Obligation to retreat) .People are fed up with being told they CAN'T fight back. With having to rely on running, like rabbits, and being required, by law, to give criminals whatever they want, in hopes that mercy will be shown them. Women are told, in OTR governed places, to just submit to rape, az that will give them a better chance of survival. Residents are required go flee their homes, if they can, and aren't dead, rather than fight back in home invasions. Basically, making defending yourself illegal. The only option is to submit, come what may.
So, Castle Doctrines and SYG laws have been enacted. A woman can stop her would be rapist, with lethal force. A resident, can can give home invaders all tbe 12ga they can handle. These laws are intended to empower citizens to defend themselves, with no obligation to submit or run or trust to the tender mercies of predators.
Simple recognition of human dignity, is what SYG boils down to. Regardless of recent events, that have the rabbit people so worked up, SYG laws are a good thing. Under OTR, criminals operated with impunity. Under the general assumption, that their prey, was obligated, by law, to submit to their will.
People are fed up with the CA way. SYG does NOT mean kill at will. Please! Spare me. Cases of self defense with lethal force are quite thoroughly investigated. Tbe rules governing use of lethal force all apply. This "kill at will" bit is a bit melodramatic.
OTR laws are just, flat, stupid. There should not even need to be a debate over this. You have a RIGHT, as a human being, to defend yourself. The law, should recognize that right as unquestionable. Cases of self defense are, and should be, investigated by LE. The findings either rule justification, or not, just as with LE shooting reviews. Leave our right to decend ourselves alone.
what prevents people from taking advantage of this law when they can kill someone for personal reasons and use this law to justify it and lie and say they thought the victim was a threat to them?
what prevents people from taking advantage of this law when they can kill someone for personal reasons and use this law to justify it and lie and say they thought the victim was a threat to them?
What prevents people from doing this? The massive cost of fighting the arrest and criminal charges.
Do you think the police would just accept the shooter's story and let him/her go? Person A hates person B and decides to follow them home, and kills them. Cops show up. Person A says "I was defending myself." Unless there were witnesses that can validate the story right then and there, Person A will go to jail. If the story is fishy, they'll face charges.
If person B is just a jilted lover or a disliked co-worker, with no history of violence, Person A will go broke defending themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
